AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Satya Poot Mehrotra and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.—The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India making the following prayers :
"(a) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to recover the amount mentioned in the impugned recovery certificate dated 27.6.2003 (Annexure8 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No. 2 i.e., Regional Food Controller, Varanasi from the petitioner.
(b) To, issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned recover certificate (Annexure8 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No. 2 i.e.. Regional Food Controller, Varanasi.
(c) To, issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to sell the agricultural property of the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned recovery certificate (Annexure8 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No. 2 i.e., Regional Food Controller, Varanasi, situated in villageJogamusahib, Deoria and Sabirapur.
(d) To, issue such other and further writ, order or direction which this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case; so that justice be done between the parties.
(e) To, award cost of the writ petition throughout to the petitioner as against the respondents."
As per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner at the relevant time was running the business of rice mill under the name and style of ''M/s. Jai Prakash Mini Rice Mills'' situated at Jogamusahib, District Ghazipur.
The petitioner entered into an agreement with the State Government under which the State Government was to supply paddy to the petitioner, and the petitioner was required to convert the paddy into rice in the mill run by the petitioner. After converting the paddy into rice, the petitioner was required to return the same to the regional food controller. For every 100 quintals of paddy, the petitioner was required to return to Regional Food Controller, 64 quintals of rice or any other quantity as fixed by the Government from time to rime.
It appears that for the year 200102 it was alleged that the petitioner did not delivery 1596.83.940 quintals rice to the Regional Food Controller after converting the paddy supplied to the petitioner into rice.
Subsequently, an amount of Rs. 15,91,065.20 was sought to be recovered from the petitioner on account of the loss caused to the State Government. Recovery certificate dated 27.6.2003 was sent by the Regional Food Controller, Varanasi Region, Varanasi to the Collector Ghazipur for recovery of the aforesaid amount alongwith interest from the petitioner as arrears of the land revenue.
Counteraffidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Subsequently a supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioner on 13th September, 2010.
From the averments made in the said supplementary affidavit, it transpires that while the present writ petition was pending, an application was filed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before this Court.
By the order dated 23rd September, 2005, the Hon''ble the Chief Justice referred the matter for arbitration under section 11 of the said Act. The arbitrator gave the award dated 25.8.2007, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure S.A. 1 to the said supplementary affidavit.
The arbitrator in the said award held that the claim of the State Government for shortage of supply of rice by the petitioner was not proved, and therefore, the State Government was not entitled for supply of 1596.83.940 quintals rice from the petitioner.
The arbitrator further allowed the counterclaim made by the petitioner, and further directed that the petitioner would be entitled to the amount together with interest at the rate of 12% during the pendency of the dispute and till the date of the award.
A supplementary counteraffidavit has been filed in reply to the aforesaid supplementary affidavit.
From a perusal of the supplementary counteraffidavit, it is evident that the averments made in the aforesaid supplementary affidavit have not been specifically denied.
Shri Bal Krishna, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents refers to the averments made in paragraph 7 of the aforesaid supplementary counteraffidavit, and states that the aforesaid award was not questioned by the respondents before the Court. Thus, the award became final..
On the basis of instructions received by him, Shri Bal Krishan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents further states that the amount in respect of the counterclaim made by the petitioner was paid to the petitioner by cheque dated 15.2.2009.
In view of the above, it is evident that the aforesaid award has been accepted by the State Government.
As noted above, under the aforesaid award, the arbitrator held that the State Government was not entitled to claim shortfall of 1596.83.940 quintals rice as against the petitioner.
It is, thus, evident that the State Government has accepted the aforesaid award, and has accepted the case of the petitioner that there was no short supply of 1596.83.940 quintals rice made by the petitioner, as alleged by the respondents.
Hence, the recovery of Rs. 15,91,065.20 with interest sought to be made by the respondents against the petitioner by issuing the recovery certificate dated 27.6.2003 (Annexure8 to the writ petition) cannot evidently be made by the respondents.
In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are directed not to make any recovery pursuant to the recovery certificate dated 27.6.2003. The respondent No. 2 is directed to withdraw the said recovery certificate forthwith.
However, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.